The mainstream media was working overtime this week to try to discredit reports that Susan Rice participated in surveillance efforts targeting the Trump campaign and/or transition team while she was National Security Advisor.

These outlets are trotting out “experts” – who all seem to be somehow connected to the Obama administration – who have declared that what Susan Rice did was normal and not political.

If only there was evidence of Susan Rice inserting politics into her National Security Council decision making…

No, I’m not talking about Benghazi or even Bowe Berghdal. I’m talking Rwanda.

Before Susan Rice became Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, she served as the United States’ Ambassador to the United Nations from 2009-2013. When she transitioned over to the White House, she was replaced at the UN by a woman named Samantha Power (shown right in the above photo).

Samantha Power previously wrote a book called A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide. She is no Conservative. She held a cabinet level position within the Obama administration.

So let’s rewind to 1993. The Rwandan Genocide is raging and the Clinton administration has no idea how to respond to the slaughter.

On page 359 of A Problem from Hell, Power recounts a conference call about the Clinton administration’s response to the Rwandan Genocide. At the time, Susan Rice held two positions within the administration: she served on the National Security Council and as the Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping. Both of these are supposedly apolitical jobs. Here is the passage from my own personal copy of the book.

While her colleagues were talking about the obligation the US had to intervene, Susan Rice chimed in and asked what the political cost for Congressional Democrats would be if the Clinton administration formally called the Rwandan Genocide a “genocide.”

“If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?”

Susan Rice denies ever making the comment, kind of like she denied ever unmasking Trump campaign/transition officials in incidental surveillance reports. But more on that later…

Lieutenant Colonel Tony Marley expressed his shock that someone would actually vocalize such political concerns while hundreds of thousands of innocent people were being slaughtered. But this isn’t the only time that this topic of politicizing the genocide response came up.

During an interview for PBS’ Frontline program, Marley again recounted how disgusting it was to have administration officials prioritizing politics ahead of stopping crimes against humanity. He told the interviewer,

“One administration official asked the question at a teleconference as to what possible impact there might be on the Congressional elections scheduled for later that year were the government to acknowledge that genocide was taking place in Rwanda, and yet the administration be seen as doing nothing about it. The concern seemed to be that this might cost the President’s political party votes in the election and therefore should be factored into the consideration as to whether or not “genocide” could be used as a term.”

While he doesn’t mention Rice by name during the interview, the statement – when viewed alongside the Power passage – makes it clear that Susan Rice was the one who was worried about Democrat politics. She was tasked with crafting international peacekeeping and national security policies and all she seemed interested in was stopping Republicans from retaking Congress.

So, from the very start of Susan Rice’s career on the National Security Council, she has inserted politics into her national security decision making. The media wants us all to believe that Susan Rice couldn’t possibly have politicized her work on the NSC. We are being told that the National Security Council is not political in any way, shape, or form. Meanwhile, one of Obama’s own cabinet-level appointees went out of her way to mention Susan Rice’s penchant for politicizing national security decisions in her book.

Why does any of this matter? Because right now, media outlets like CNN and MSNBC are frantically trying to sweep this evolving scandal under the rug. They are taking Susan Rice’s claims and spreading them like the Gospel truth.

“This is not anything political as has been alleged,” Rice told MSNBC this week in an interview. “The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes. That is absolutely false.”

But here is the question we need to ask ourselves.

Put aside, for a minute, the fact that Susan Rice politicized the response to the Benghazi terror attack, blaming the attack on a YouTube video when she knew that it was a premeditated attack.

Put aside the fact that Susan Rice spun the Bowe Berghdal prisoner swap and lied to the American people by claiming the deserter “served with honor and distinction.”

This is a woman who politicized genocide. She looked at the atrocities taking place, the wholesale slaughter of almost a million people, and she was most concerned about crafting a policy that helped Congressional Democrats win re-election. While the rest of her colleagues saw images of innocent women and children being cut down by machetes, Rice was thinking about poll numbers and midterm politics.

Knowing that she even politicized genocide, why on earth should anyone believe that her efforts to surveil the Trump team were apolitical?